Wouldn’t think so, not unless you got a special deal where it was expressly mentioned. Standard for almost all lathes is the 4 way holder.

My bad. Please ignore.

As for general advice I will always recommend a 40pos “Multifix” system, especially if you have plans for a DRO.

I use a ‘wedge-type’ toolpost on a 11″ / 280 swing Warco lathe – but the ‘100’-size – the critical measurement is how much daylight you have between the topslide/compound surface and centre-height.

Measure your lathe once it arrives and make a decision from there.

I much prefer the the ‘wedge-type’ toolpost to the ‘piston-type’; The wedge type uses a sliding tapered gib to pull the toolholder tight onto the body, the other type uses a piston to push it out onto the dovetail (go figure).

The one I have is this;

https://www.arceurotrade.co.uk/Catalogue/Machines-Accessories/Lathe-Accessories/Tool-Posts/Model-111-Quick-Change-Tool-Post

..of course you could buy a genuine Aloris, and support the original maker..

The holders are cheap to buy or easy to make and the system is inherently forgiving of dimensional inconsistencies.

Had mine since I got the lathe and like it a lot.

Every centimeter the QCTP pushes the tool to the left is another centimeter your carriage moves to the right, is another centimeter your tailstock extends. Add a DRO slide between carriage and tailstock and it can get silly.

I have never had a Multifix, I want one because they look really neat, but I have no experience 🙁

Robin

Leaving aside Robins very valid comments about the extra space consumed by a QCTP and the resulting need for more tailstock travel if working between centres the fundamental disadvantage of any QTCP system is the sheer cost of all the tool holders needed for efficient working.

Proper exploitation of a QTCP requires enough holders to carry all your regularly used tools plus a spare or three to take the extras needed for the particular job in progress. Something like 10 or 12 seems to be considered a desirable aspiration if you are not to run out of ready to go tools and either have to change mid job or plan ahead adjusting the loaded set before starting.

Setting a new tool to centre height mid job when you’ve got something in the machine that you’d rather not have to remover and re-aligning can be a right pain if the job crowds out the height gauge. Shuffling tools in an inadequate number of holders gets old fast! Marking the tailstock barrel or casting to indicate centre height can be a useful work around but, in my experience, doesn’t really fill the gap if a job is mounted.

A less costly alternative is swopping out complete, loaded, block tool posts whether conventional 4 way or the, preferable in my view due to being smaller, 2 way. Such blocks are quite easily made by gluing and screwing together stock sections of plate and bar material. Steel for the top and bottom, alloy in the middle to make tapping for the screws easier seems a good way to go about things. HSS tooling can be shimmed on the bench using a height gauge, inserts just need the right thickness base or a fixed shim to get the holder in the right place. A simple drilled block does just fine for boring bar and is more solid than the usual carrier.

I used a similar block swopping system on SouthBend lathes for a fair number of years and found it adequately satisfactory. Room for improvement in my first implementation to make accurate relocation simpler but a usefully better version 2 never seemed worth the effort.

The centre spigot on your machine is an advantage in locating block posts rather than a pain when arranging for a QTCP system. You will need to make arrangements for some sort of rotational location so the blocks go back in the same orientation. Whether a simple pin in the toolpost and matching location hole in the topside catering for one position or some sort of sub base giving several options. I pretty much never rotate the tool post on my machines so would not find a fixed angle from a single hole limiting. If I do rotate the post it’s for specific cut reasons so no need for general variability.

In an ideal world a quick release thread for the holding down handle would be faster than a standard one but a normal one with  a few turns to release is liveable with. Some years ago i schemed out a plausible quick release system requiring only about 1/3 rd of a turn to operate but the whole concept got sidetracked by changing machines. The new one came with a Dickson QC set up with serval tool holders so I just haunted E-Bay until I had enough holders.

Clive